Case law

United States v. Dunn

55 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 1944

defendant were seeking to prove that the persons in Argentina vouched the seeds to be of the type advertised and that he, the defendant, acted solely in reliance upon the statements made to him, having no independent knowledge, clearly … the Green Products Branch of the Office of Distribution of the War Food Administration, setting forth a list of persons, some employed by various branches of -the government and others not in government employ, who are qualified

Lance International, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

264 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1967

Some tests are well established. … In the James River Apartments case, since removal was clearly authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , the holding as to § 1442(a) (1) is of doubtful significance.

Dipinto v. Westchester County

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 19, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … If an official’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

McManus v. Doubleday & Co., Inc.

513 F. Supp. 1383 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1981

Clearly, real violence is a substantial focus of the subchapter, and it would not be unreasonable for an average reader to take the “homicidal tendencies” statement in the same light. … Judge Friendly recently noted that, “[a]s would be natural in a case establishing a new principle, the Edwards opinion did not attempt precise definition of its contours.

Kushneir v. Esposito

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019

The Court, therefore, holds that, “for qualified immunity purposes, the officers” did not “invad[e] Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights of association, assembly, and free exercise, as they were executing . . . order[ … Mar. 29, 2019) (“Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that an order temporarily banning demonstrators from a densely crowded sidewalk violated the First Amendment.”).

Harris v. New York State Department of Health

202 F. Supp. 2d 143 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 24, 2002

In order to prevail on his federal disabilities claims, Harris must establish that he suffers from a qualifying disability, that with a reasonable accommodation he is capable of adequately performing the work or services … reasonable appearances state sovereign immunity had already been lost.”

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

225 F. Supp. 2d 376 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2002

Bergman is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Port Authority is not treated as a state for sovereign immunity purposes and thus is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Hess v. Port Auth.

Byrne v. United States

804 F. Supp. 577 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1992

Because the FTCA effects a waiver of sovereign immunity, its terms must be strictly construed. Keene Corp. v. … The panel clearly stated that the requirement that a notice of claim be filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2675 is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. 700 F.2d at 841 .

Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle

515 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 2007

Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 274 , 108 S.Ct. 1803 , 100 L.Ed.2d 302 (1988) (noting that “state statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce are routinely struck down”). … In Healy , Justice Scalia noted in his concurrence that the statute’s “invalidity is fully established by its facial discrimination against interstate commerce,” and that this “discriminatory character eliminates the immunity

McGuire v. United States Postal Service

749 F. Supp. 1275 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 1990

The United States, as sovereign, enjoys a general immunity from suit and may only be sued to the extent that it has waived its immunity. … “Judicial claims which serve to amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus earlier EEO complaints are appropriate.

Fernandez v. O'Neill

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of plaintiff’s claims. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established

Erbacci, Cerone, and Moriarty, Ltd. v. United States

939 F. Supp. 1045 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 1996

As the Government correctly argues, “[e]ven assuming that one has a constitutional right to sell insurance, ... one clearly does not have a constitutional right to sell insurance to a client who does not want to purchase … Moreover, Illinois courts also appear to disagree as to whether a plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s conduct was unjustified or whether a plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s conduct was malicious.

Banco Metropolitano, S.A. v. Desarrollo De Autopistas Y Carreteras De Guatemala, Sociedad Anonima

616 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 1985

The following year a Claims Procedure was established for DAG creditors. On February 7, 1983 Banco Metropolitano was advised that certain notes issued by DAG had been “immobilized.” … This Report clearly implies that subsection 2 is to relate to delivery within the United States. Banco Metropolitano seeks to blunt the effect of the Report by pointing out the plain language of FSIA.

United States ex rel. Burke v. Mancusi

331 F. Supp. 1246 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 15, 1971

The record established that Kaminsky and petitioner were indicted on July 19, 1966 (Indictment No. 2796-66), and that *1249 the information provided by petitioner was relied upon in bringing the indictment. … “Now, I am aware of the fact that the qualifying words which Mr. Grebow spoke were ‘if Burke’s co-operation were substantial’.

Malloy v. Bennett

15 F. 371 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 1883

The argument for the defendant seems to assume that the proprietor of a newspaper has some peculiar immunity from liability for exemplary damages; that he should not be held responsible for the acts of his employes; and that … If the case had been one for compensatory damages only, the verdict would be so clearly excessive as to justify the inference that the jury acted under misconception, or were influenced by partiality or prejudice.

Diaz v. Blum

479 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 1979

and deception upon agencies charged with the administration of the various social security programs. 14 Whatever administrative *935 shortcomings there may be, these do not serve to immunize recipients from appearances at … Accordingly, the case does not qualify for class certification and the motions for intervention and for leave to amend the complaint to include the proposed intervenors as named plaintiffs are denied.

Noroozi v. Napolitano

905 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 2012

First, the Government notes that CIS’s decision to revoke the visa initially granted to Noroozi is immune from judicial review. … In addition to this shortcoming, Noroozi did nothing to establish that the publications in which these articles appeared had the requisite level of circulation to qualify as either “a major trade publication or major media

Carter v. Cornell University

173 F.R.D. 92 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 1997

Flamm qualifies as a representative of an attorney for attorney-client privilege purposes. 3 *95 B. … This case clearly falls within the holding of Upjohn .

In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation

211 F.R.D. 249 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 2002

The proponent of the privilege bears the burden of establishing its existence. See, e.g., United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 119 F.3d 210 , 214 (2d Cir.1997). … See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) Advisory Committee’s Note (1970 Amendment) (“Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business ... are not under the qualified immunity provided by this subdivision.”); accord United States

Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

56 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 1999

Based on this clearly erroneous assumption, Dr. Webber computed a MASC of 1.55 ppm of PCBs (Id., p. 23). … Allergic contact dermatitis [such as poison ivy] requires that a person actually develop an allergy or an immune response to the particular chemical....